Oh, and, to nitpick, France doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. France offers couples, same- and mixed-sex, PACS, or “civil solidarity pacts,” which offer some but not all of the rights and benefits of marriage.
Given that the governor is defying his own state’s court rather than the SCOTUS, who the hell will step in the fix this one?
So how would that work: You don’t exist but you can have partial rights?
To offer civil ceremonies and a legal status is to inherently recognise the marriage exists - to not (yet) afford gay marriages full rights means it’s called an interinm step.
But you can’t afford something partial rights and not recognise its existence.
OK, well, try this. Go ask the French consulate in San Francisco if same-sex marriage is legal in France and if a civil solidarity pact is the same as marriage.
How it works is that France decided to extend some, but not all, of the rights and privileges previously reserved to married couples to unmarried couples, both mixed-sex and same-sex. France could have legalized same-sex marriage, as The Netherlands and Denmark did, but they did not.
Here is a brief history of PACS. Here is an article about a constitutional challenge to PACS which failed. Here is an article about the initial wave of PACS registrations.
Your friends may consider themselves married. I do not begrudge them that in the slightest. But from a factual, legal standpoint they are not married under the laws of France because France does not have legal same-sex marriage. France would not and does not recognize them as a married couple.
Considering that at least one city, Cambridge, is champing at the bit to issue licenses now, my feeling is that even if Romney issues an executive order not to issue licenses that one or more issuing entities will just ignore him. He could also be looking at a contempt citation which could have the delicious effect of getting him clapped in irons by bailiffs and carted off to jail until he rescinds the order.
Nothing much to say, just adding my voice to the general agreement that this is very cool. Equality is only equality if it’s for everyone.
Make your mind up what it is you want to “Nitpick”. You started with saying France doesn’t recognise gay marriages, to which I said you’re wrong. And now you’ve shifted to it’s not “legal” in France. If you want to nitpick, don’t keep moving the goalposts.
I understand the law in France, my friends understand the law in France. Their marriage is recognised – the word you originally nitpicked. Sure, it doesn’t have equal status because it’s an interim position, they’re adopted an equality one-step-at-a-time policy. But that wasn’t your point, and you’re telling me what I’ve already known for over two years.
Thanks, but bye.
The above post to Otto.
I was going to be all snarky and point out that Linda Brown wasn’t a him. But I suppose it was technically her father named on the suit. And then I wrote this anyway.
Carry on. And good on SF and those couples!
Oh for fuck’s sake.
Same-sex marriage is not a legally recognized construct in the nation of France. Is that better? Does that cover all your silly little bases?
I don’t know why you have this particular wild hair up your ass and why you can’t admit that you’re wrong, but you’re just flat-out wrong in your assertion that France has legally recognized same-sex marriage. It hasn’t, and I’ve posted the evidence for it. Why don’t you try posting a single source other than your anecdotal story about your friends that states otherwise? Civil solidarity pacts are not marriages. Couples joined in PACS are not married under French law. France “recognizes” your friends as a couple, but does not “recognize” them as a married couple. Do you get it now or do you still wish to play this stupid fucking little game?
One of two hearings on the legality of SF’s move is set to begin at 11:00 PST. Whatever the decision, the losing side is sure to appeal to the California supreme court.
In breaking news, one of two hearings has been postponed. The plaintiffs amended their filing and didn’t give San Francisco the required 24 hours to review it. The judge rescheduled it to Friday, but may cancel it alltogether depending on what happens at the other hearing also scheduled for today.
And the anti-family forces amassed against the thousands of married couples want the mayor of San Francisco arrested.
Update: Any hearings which would put a stop to this have been delayed until Friday.
On a personal note, my cousin and her girlfriend/wife/life partner, who had a meaningful-but-not-in-a-legal-sense wedding last summer, showed up bright and early on Sunday morning hoping for the best, but the line was already way too long. They nonetheless spent a festive day cheering for other couples as they emerged, and it sounded like a fantastic experience. (I have a quite moving email from them describing the scene which I’ve asked permission to reproduce here, sans names…)
Anyone have a sense of what the national reaction to this is?
Here’s my cousin’s email. (It’s actually from my cousin’s partner Ellen). (Oh, and lest you think that there’s some sort of chicanery going on with the wheelchair and the handicapped spaces, Ellen has chronic Fiber Myalgia or some such condition, and isn’t capable of standing in line for very long…)
Let’s also hear it for the City Hall clerks, who not only worked all through the weekend, but did so without wage.
I wish I could be there. This is really cool. I WILL be in San Francisco in July, but all sorts of legal stuff could go down before then. We shall see. Not that I’m going there to get married, though I’d love to do it there just because of this, straight as I am. There’s no candidate for THAT right now, though.
I’ve always had a fondness for the city, and this only makes that feeling grow.
I was beginning to wonder if anyone else remembered Clela Rorex.
So Max now that everything’s been pushed back to Friday is your cousin going to get merried this week?
Wow.
Otto, that Clela Rorex story was fascinating. I wasn’t aware that this had happened before; here’s hoping things turn out better this time.
I did a paper on SSM a few years back and included information about her. When the SF story and all the “first in the nation” stories started I was like “nuh uh!” The first time I read about her and especially her answer to the man who wanted to marry his horse I declared her a minor personal hero. I’m glad she was remembered and I hope one day she’ll get the recognition she deserves. And I love her name.
I don’t know why I assumed she was dead…
<bump for updates>
The State of California Department of Health and Human Services has announced it will not record any marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples, because the license form was altered and state law requires the license forms be uniform. The words “bride” and “groom” were replaced with “applicant one” and “applicant two.”
The weddings will continue for at least six more weeks under a ruling issued Tuesday. I can’t find anything that discusses the ruling specifically so if anyone has more information I’d appreciate your posting it.
George and Laura Bush continue to be “disturbed” and “shocked” respectively. The mayor has suggested that the Bushes meet with Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon to explain personally why their being legally married after 51 years together is harmful to the nation.